Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Does Anyone Like 3d?

Dan Hudgins said:
When shooting 3D you should NEVER have any subject show up on the screen so that your eyes need to Diverge. What works on a computer monitor will not work for people looking at a big screen, you need to shoot a test grid with marks, the look at the screen to make shure the test grid with marks is right in the print, otherwise you sell headache pills at the candy counter.
Click to expand...

Danish P.V. said:
I think finally we got it - you`re doing/offering 3D.

At a time where most of the 2D movies suck big times it hardly makes sense to me watching the same or even bigger crap in 3D, as most of the makers (like some posters already stated) rather concentrate on this gimmick than the actual story.
Click to expand...

These are good points (as are many) I HaTE it when you get stuff flying in your face and you have to go cross eyed to try and see it. 3D should be incidental, and never come out of the screen at you
 
You can tell who has kids and has to endure 3D on a regular basis:)

I'll give Avatar a go and honestly I'll try and be fair minded about it as I'd love Cameron to pull it off, but having seen the 2D trailer I don't hold out much hope.
 
Personally I love the idea of 3D, I just don't think that it has been implemented well enough yet, from what I have seen. It is simply a additional device in horror (GIMMICK), however it has the potential to be an EXCELLENT visual device.

All films do not suit 3D! I have been tossing around the idea of shooting a feature next year in 3D on the 2/3" Scarlet but have decided against it, as it doesn't suit the story. I will shoot some test shots during the feature, because the feature I have planned after that would be a perfect 3D film, like I have not seen done yet.

The world of the thriller is an excellent landscape for 3D.

I wish it didn't strain my eyes, but then I wish my legs didn't get stiff, or my ass didn't get numb...to be honest though watching any film in IMAX strains my eyes...especially big action films...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
"Wet T-Shirt Pie Eating Contest 3D" would make more money I think.
:coolgleamA:
Click to expand...

Seriously, how did you know... that's the opening scene! Next, the girl who loses the contest, goes side by side with the winner (and the camera) to see which rack has more volume- which reaches the back row of the theater, when the jealousy boils and the pie throwing begins. In the first 10 pages we've got everybody covered in cream pies... then they shower of course.

The sequel would be Co-ed Food Fight Double D- or maybe that's the prequel, I guess. Damn, see 3d is so good- I've never written a script so fast. There'll be very little dialog.
 
Liam Hall said:
You can tell who has kids and has to endure 3D on a regular basis:)

I'll give Avatar a go and honestly I'll try and be fair minded about it as I'd love Cameron to pull it off, but having seen the 2D trailer I don't hold out much hope.
Click to expand...

Patience, my friend. Patience. I think Cameron will not let us down.
 
While I'm not a fan of 3D, I am looking forward to Avatar.

My biggest gripes are dimness and lower frame rate. As I understand it, any movie in 3D is actually playing back at 12 fps per eye. For my brain, this comes across very studdery. (I'm one of those folks that can't watch single chip DLP projectors because all I see is rainbows, so maybe my brain processes images faster than average).

As for the dimness, my wife and I had to walk out of Harry Potter 3D IMAX because the picture was so dim as to be unwatchable. We weren't the only ones, people all around the theater were muttering about the picture being dim. I'm sure it was a combination of an old bulb, and the inherent added dimness of the polarizing process for 3D. But I'm a brightness fan, and old dim bulbs are already a problem for me, why would I want to exacerbate that problem with gimmicky 3D.

I'll take a smooth, bright 2D film any day over a dim, studdery 3D one.
 
Tom L said:
We'll see if all you 3D haters are singing the same tune after "Avatar"...
Click to expand...

Actually the trailer to Avatar makes the film look laughable. It really looks like a terribly ill conceived offering.

But to answer the question: I love 3D as a distraction (you know like going to Universal's Shrek 4-D kind of thing...)
 
What to shoot in 3D?

What to shoot in 3D?

It think "The Reader (2008)" and "Inglourious Basterds (2009)" would have been better in 3D, 3D is best in slow moving non action movies when you have the time to enjoy the textures of the 3D shapes, but that needs un-compressed images to get the most out of.

Since 3D lets you see more when done right, using it in CGI movies just makes the CGI look less believable.

==

Autostereoscopic displays were mentioned, those will be of use in the home, but not for theatres because you cannot project small enough exit pupils to have it work, its a matter of the physics of light and how you can control the light with current or foreseeable methods, no autostereoscopic screens 100 meters wide anytime in our lives.
 
Jeremy Neish said:
As for the dimness, my wife and I had to walk out of Harry Potter 3D IMAX because the picture was so dim as to be unwatchable...
Click to expand...

You did know that only the first 15 minutes or so were in 3D right? You should've stayed.

In any case, I've noticed that IMAX 3D glasses are much darker than other digital 3D theaters I frequent. Maybe their 3d technology is a bit behind the times? I can't remember the brand of the digital theater's glasses, but they are much brighter and you can tilt and roll your head without having the image go double on you. The 3D Avatar trailer looked spectacular in that theater.
 
I love 3D but this image was too great not to share...

fuck_3d_1.jpg
 
games vs films

games vs films

3D computer games as VR experience make perfect sense : the spectator is immersed into an artificial world and can get, via the stereoscopic images, additional sensorial feedback about this immersion. And in computer games, you will see some body parts of the player (a gun, ...) in the 3D image. So really, the story is about him, the player slipping into the role of some hero.

Interactive games, or even interactive stories, sure, immersion makes "sense", starting with 3D image, 3D audio, physical sensation (force feedback exists for some years already) later maybe scent, more physical sensations (touch, heat, cold, humidity, pain, ...). That's a fair enough market for 3D tech, no need for 3D narrative movies to justify the 3D television set.

For narrative movies, immersion could be more of a constraint than a means of expression.
 
3D is still in its infancy. If there's no market today, there will be no further development. The potential for innovation in 3D has a huge upside, but the real breakthrough will come when the screen shrinks in size and is inside the glasses we wear, yet still retains 4K rez. To see where 3D will go, look at VR from 20 years ago.
 
4K + glasses, huh? I know one guy who is an expert in both fields...
 
Sky TV (European Satellite Provider) are proposing to start a 3D HD subscription service next year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/30/bskyb-sky-3d-tv

Several big name tv manufacturers are launching in home 3D flat screens next year so I reckon this is a very relevant point.

The only problem as I see it is that we#re heading for another format war. Panasonic and some others I think are using shutter glasses: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/01/08/ces_panasonic_3d_tv/, the cinema currently uses polarising lenses (I think from memory at least 1 tv manufacturer is going down this route also - I believe Sony are: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8285187.stm) and there's an American company that's developed a 1,000fps laser tv using polarised glasses thats a unique technology also: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/drive_to_discover&id=7013471
 
Luis de la Cerda said:
You did know that only the first 15 minutes or so were in 3D right? You should've stayed.
Click to expand...

Actually we did stay past the 3D, and it was still dim, I'm not sure why, but there was no increase in brightness at all when the movie went back to 2D. Presumably since part of it was 3D, whatever technology they used for that remained in place, even after the film switched to 2D.

As for it being 12fps or 24fps per eye, I don't really know how it works, other than it's clearly more studdery to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top